We take a quick look at 6mm Remington, aka .244 Remington, a true middle-weight heavy hitter of a cartridge.
The 6mm Remington has exactly the same case dimensions as the .244 Remington. They differ only in the fact that the 6mm Remington is loaded with bullets of up to 100 grains, whereas the .244 Remington was never loaded with bullets of more than 90 grains.
Ammunition marked .244 Remington can be fired in 6mm Remington chambers and vice versa. However, rifles marked .244 Remington will not always stabilize the 100-grain bullet. The difference between the two is that .244 rifles (if manufactured by Remington) have a 1:12 rifling twist, and rifles marked 6mm have a 1:9 twist.
When Remington introduced the .244, in 1955, it selected the 1:12 twist as best suited to long-range accuracy with bullets of 75 to 90 grains. That was correct, except that most shooters wanted to use bullets of 100 to 105 grains to cover the range of game from varmints through deer with the same rifle. To correct this misjudgment, Remington renamed the cartridge 6mm Remington and changed to a 1:9 twist.
To have retained the .244 designation and simply changed the twist would have brought on complaints from purchasers of the original .244s with the slower twist, when they tried to use the new 100-grain load. The change in cartridge nomenclature to 6mm and the faster twist occurred in 1963. The Remington 700 series and 788 bolt-action rifles, as well as the firm’s autoloaders and the slide-actions, have been available in 6mm.
General Comments
The original 6mm Remington was loaded only with the 100-grain bullet. However, it’s now available with 80-, 90- and 100-grain bullets, which greatly extends its flexibility. Although the older .244 lost out to the .243 Winchester, the 6mm Remington with faster twist barrels is gradually picking up a following. It is an excellent choice for the varmint hunter who also wants to use his rifle for deer and antelope.
Although the 6mm has a slightly larger powder capacity than the .243, the difference in performance is negligible as far as killing power is concerned. Nevertheless, this small advance in ballistics appeals to some people and so does the longer neck of the 6mm case, which many handloaders consider desirable. This caliber is commercially loaded by Federal and Winchester, as well as Remington.
A federal firearm-rights restoration process is reopening after more than three decades, but the Second Amendment remains a constitutional right—not a government-issued privilege. AI-generated illustration by AmmoLand News.
United States Attorney General Todd Blanche finalized a federal regulation governing the restoration of federal firearm rights. The new process allows eligible individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms to apply to have those rights restored.
“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” said Attorney General Todd Blanche. “This rule establishes a rigorous, common-sense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.”
The signed rule has been transmitted to the Federal Register. DOJ cautions that the currently available text is unofficial until formally published.
A Restoration Process Congress Left Dormant for Decades
Section 922(g) prohibits certain categories of people (e.g., felons, domestic violence misdemeanants, unlawful drug users, fugitives, certain aliens, those under domestic violence restraining orders, etc.) from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition in or affecting commerce.
Section 925(c), however, has long authorized the Attorney General to grant relief if the applicant shows they “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety” and that granting relief “would not be contrary to the public interest.”
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) previously administered this process by delegation. Still, Congress defunded it via appropriations riders starting in 1992, rendering the program inoperative for over 30 years.
In March 2025, DOJ issued an interim final rule withdrawing the ATF delegation. In July 2025, it published a notice of proposed rulemaking with detailed criteria. After receiving over 15,500 comments (roughly 91% supportive of restoring a workable process), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized the rule.
The program will now be operated through the Office of the Pardon Attorney rather than ATF, although the Attorney General retains the ultimate decision-making authority.
When Will Applications Open?
The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, but DOJ plans to roll out the application process in stages.
According to the Department’s current Federal Firearm Rights Restoration website:
Thirty days after publication, DOJ will begin inviting candidates to apply.
Seventy-five days after publication, the application will open to the public, beginning with the first 5,000 applicants.
At 120 days, DOJ will accept another 500 applicants and begin collecting the application fee.
The Department directs prospective applicants to justice.gov/ffrr for updated eligibility information, application instructions, and the eventual online application.
Who Will Be Presumptively Disqualified?
According to the DOJ, the rule aims to protect Second Amendment rights while ensuring public safety. Relief is discretionary and guided by statutory standards.
Several offenses are presumptively permanent disqualifications. These include violent felonies (homicide, kidnapping, terrorism, stalking, and other crimes of violence), convictions involving brandishing or discharging a firearm, sex offenses requiring registration under SORNA that also trigger a § 922(g) prohibition, and felony-level domestic violence.
There will also be other time-limited presumptive disqualifications, including drug trafficking convictions or misdemeanor domestic violence: at least 10 years after completing the sentence (including probation/supervised release), and other felony convictions: at least 5 years after completing the sentence.
Other statuses that are presumptively ineligible are being a fugitive from justice (§ 922(g)(2)), unlawfully present aliens or certain nonimmigrants (§ 922(g)(5)), and persons subject to qualifying domestic violence restraining orders (§ 922(g)(8)).
The final presumptively ineligible status is being an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances (§ 922(g)(3)) — until the pattern of use ends. That final category seems to be at odds with the United States Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hemani. Still, the DOJ does not believe it is at odds because the Hemani opinion was narrow.
What the Supreme Court Held in Hemani
The Supreme Court held that the federal government could not prosecute Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) based solely on evidence that he regularly used marijuana while possessing a gun in his home. The government did not allege that Hemani was addicted, intoxicated when he possessed the firearm, incapable of managing his affairs, or dangerous to himself or others. Nor did it claim that he had misused the gun.
The Court rejected the government’s attempt to treat anyone who regularly used any amount of a controlled substance as categorically dangerous. Historical laws dealing with intoxication and “habitual drunkards” targeted different conduct, operated differently, and generally required more than the mere regular use of an intoxicating substance.
The Supreme Court nevertheless described its decision as narrow. It did not decide whether the government may disarm people who are addicted or presently intoxicated. It also did not decide whether § 922(g)(3) could be applied when the government presents individualized proof that a person’s drug use makes him dangerous—or proof that a particular drug always renders its users dangerous. The Court expressly declined to pass on those questions either way.
In short, mere regular marijuana use, without more, was insufficient to support the government’s automatic and categorical ban as applied to Hemani.
DOJ Creates a Marijuana Exception
In response to Hemani and the large number of public comments addressing marijuana, DOJ amended the final rule to create an important exception.
For purposes of the rule’s drug-related presumption, DOJ’s definition of “controlled substance” does not include marijuana. As a result, unlawful use of or addiction to marijuana alone does not trigger the same presumption of ineligibility that applies to users or addicts of other controlled substances. The Department also removed proposed requirements that applicants and their character references affirm that the applicant does not use or is not addicted to marijuana.
DOJ acknowledges that excluding marijuana addicts, not merely marijuana users, goes beyond the facts presented in Hemani. The Department says distinguishing a marijuana “user” from a marijuana “addict” would require a highly fact-specific inquiry that could undermine the administrability of the restoration process.
That does not mean marijuana use automatically restores anyone’s firearm rights or removes a federal disability under 922(g)(3). The statute remains on the books, and the relief process itself remains discretionary.
Instead, an applicant whose only drug-related issue involves marijuana may apply without facing the rule’s extraordinary-circumstances presumption. DOJ may still consider the applicant’s marijuana use and other individual circumstances when deciding whether restoration would be consistent with public safety and the public interest.
For controlled substances other than marijuana, the presumption remains. Someone who continues to qualify as an unlawful user or addict will generally be denied absent extraordinary circumstances. Because that disability is status-based, an individual may ordinarily remove himself from the prohibited category by ending the unlawful conduct and breaking the pattern of ongoing use.
What Applicants Must Submit
An applicant must complete the required form and disclose all federal firearm disabilities for which relief is requested. Required materials may include:
Electronic fingerprints or properly completed fingerprint cards.
Certified or otherwise reliable court records.
Charging documents, judgments, plea agreements, and presentence reports.
Proof that every requirement of the sentence has been completed.
State criminal-history records for each jurisdiction in which the applicant has lived or been arrested during the applicable period.
Relevant military, mental-health, domestic violence, citizenship-renunciation, or foreign records.
Affidavits from three qualified character references.
Authorization for DOJ to obtain additional background information.
The final rule shifts responsibility for local law-enforcement notification to DOJ. The Department will notify the appropriate chief law-enforcement officer for the locality where the applicant resides and allow that agency to submit information supporting or opposing restoration.
The application fee is $30 once the fee stage begins, up from the proposed $20. DOJ will periodically review the fee and conduct an audit after the program has operated long enough to produce reliable cost information. Applicants may request a fee waiver or reduction, including for economic hardship.
How DOJ Will Decide Who Gets Relief
The Attorney General may consider the applicant’s entire record, including criminal history, dismissed charges associated with a plea agreement, conduct while incarcerated or under supervision, time since completion of the sentence, rehabilitation, threats, restraining orders, drug use, mental health, character references, and information supplied by local law enforcement.
Significantly, the final rule also allows the Attorney General to consider whether denying relief under an applicant’s individual circumstances would infringe the applicant’s Second Amendment rights.
If relief is granted, DOJ will publish notice of the decision and the reasons for it in the Federal Register. Any restoration applies only to the federal disability addressed in the application. It does not erase independent state or tribal firearm prohibitions, and it does not protect an individual from a new disability arising from later conduct.
An applicant denied relief may petition the United States District Court for the district in which he resides for judicial review.
When one dives into the annals of World War II firearms, the usual suspects like the M1 Garand, the Kar98k, and the Lee-Enfield often dominate the narrative. Yet, nestled in the arsenal of the French army was a service rifle that demands its own share of attention— the Manufacture d’Armes de Saint-Étienne Modèle 36, commonly abbreviated as the MAS-36. While it may lack the fame or romance accorded to other rifles of its era, the MAS-36 is a study in pragmatism and functionality, designed to serve a singular purpose: reliable service in the harshest conditions.
Historical Backdrop
In the interwar years, the French military found itself grappling with an aging inventory of weapons. The Lebel and Berthier rifles, although they had served admirably in World War I, were becoming long in the tooth. A modernized, simplified, and above all, durable armament was the order of the day. After a protracted period of testing and trials, the MAS-36 was formally adopted in 1936.
Design Principles
The rifle embodied a “no-frills” philosophy, stripping away any extraneous features that could be considered a liability in combat. A bolt-action rifle chambered in 7.5x54mm French, the MAS-36 employed a unique rotating bolt mechanism. Its design eschewed a conventional protruding bolt handle, opting instead for a bent, semi-circular bolt handle that fit snugly against the weapon’s frame. This feature allowed soldiers to operate the bolt more rapidly, resulting in a faster rate of fire.
The 22.6-inch barrel was relatively short for a rifle of its class, contributing to an overall length of just 40 inches. This compact profile made it easier to maneuver in the close-quarters environment of trench warfare and urban combat. To further enhance its field durability, the MAS-36 was fitted with robust, foldable sights calibrated for ranges up to 1,200 meters. Additionally, the rifle featured an integral bayonet, cleverly stored under the barrel and readily deployable with a simple twist-and-lock mechanism.
Operational Deployment
The MAS-36 first saw action in the grim days leading up to the fall of France in 1940. Unfortunately, its initial introduction was marred by a shortage of available rifles, and many French units were still equipped with older Lebel and Berthier rifles. Those who were issued the MAS-36 found it to be an effective and reliable weapon, even if it couldn’t turn the tide in favor of the beleaguered French forces.
After the fall of France, the MAS-36 continued to see use, both by Vichy French troops and Free French Forces. In the post-war period, the rifle served in a variety of conflicts, from the First Indochina War to the Algerian War. Even after it was replaced as the standard service rifle by the semi-automatic MAS-49, the MAS-36 was adapted for specialized roles, such as a sniper rifle variant designated as the MAS-36 CR39.
Collector’s Perspective and Modern Relevance
Today, the MAS-36 is a prized artifact for collectors and history enthusiasts alike. Though it might lack the finesse or elegance of some of its contemporaries, it possesses an austere functionality that reflects the dire circumstances of its birth. It serves as a lasting testament to a different era of military thinking, where function often took precedence over form.
In terms of ammunition, 7.5x54mm French rounds are not as readily available as some other historical calibers, but they can still be found or custom-loaded for those who wish to experience firing this unique weapon. Care should be taken, however, as older rifles may require inspection and possibly refurbishment to ensure they meet safety standards for live firing.
Conclusion
The Manufacture d’Armes de Saint-Étienne Modèle 36, or MAS-36, stands as an intriguing case study in military pragmatism. Its legacy is not one of innovation or technological marvel, but rather of stoic reliability and ruggedness under duress. As more glamorous weapons from its era capture the imagination of the public and historians alike, the MAS-36 remains steadfast, an unsung workhorse that tells its own tale of resilience and uncompromising functionality. It serves as both a slice of military history and a reminder of the gritty realities of warfare. It may never hold the celebrity status of its American or German counterparts, but for those who know its history, the MAS-36 commands a distinct and enduring respect.
